Відео

Honestly, this particular project didn't turn out as well as I was hoping, I think I may revisit it eventually, but I totally agree! My favorite thing about nuke is that everything is just laid out right in front of you, no digging through settings/layers, its all just right there!

@@levelupvfx finding it exceptionally tiresome with AE atm, apart from the lack of control, using anamorphic footage has been wildly difficult and so has colour management with braw files 💀 Definitely sold on Nuke now

hmmm, with mixamo its easy because the vertex weight remains when you merge them. Are your joined objects still under/inside your rig? Alternatively, you can always export it out as an alembic with the multiple parts, then when you get to the geonodes step, join the geometry back together in geonodes. (Bring each piece in, and connect it to a join geometry node, and then use that node as your character input) Hope this helps!

@@levelupvfx Thank you so much! will give this a shot.

@@levelupvfx Hey this idea worked great, I was able to join the individual head and body object info nodes together with the join geometry node, and the character successfully moves as a whole (but only after selecting "relative" on the object info nodes). If I don't have "relative" selected, then once again only the body moves. It seems when relative is not selected, I can move the group wherever the plane is. But when relative is selected, I have to move the character in order to move the group. This would be no problem, except for some reason my character's head is locked in place (I can move the body, but the head will not budge). Haha it's like a tradeoff. Any idea why my character's head would be stuck in place, unable to move, and yet the body would be freely movable? Thanks again! I am telling everyone about your videos.

hmmm, I couldnt tell you off the top of my head. If you want the easy solution, you could always just throw a transform geometry node on there and offset it to the location you want it purely through geonodes, but if you want to be able to physically move the plane simply and easily, sadly I dont really have a solution off the top of my head. Im glad you enjoyed and found the video useful though! hopefully I was at least of some help!

@@levelupvfx Hey I remade my character as one object, then rigged it and redid the animation, exported to fbx and then from fbx to alembic, figuring it would be easier to work with this way, and think I stumbled upon the real issue I was having before. Prior to unparenting the null object (after importing the alembic file), my character just a simple jump animation and his arms raise in the air, and then he lands. However, after unparenting the null object, the animation remains, but I seem to lose the elevation aspect (instead of rising up, he just raises his hands, without actually jumping). Is there a way to maintain the elevation portion of an animation with this method? Sorry for the questions haha, I am learning so much and watch this video a few times a day. It is very helpful. No worries if not though.

If you listen he says he exported in a .ply format

in your project setting.. where u save it..

😂 OMG! now that you’ve said it holy crap I say it so many times! Working on an updated tutorial for this for 4.2, will definitely have to make sure I dial those back haha!

Secret passage was just the name of my folder/blender project, you will want to replace that with the name of your blender project and folder location!

I like it a lot more, but that’s just my preference

Deffinitly let me know if you have a way to get shadows working! Currently on the Luma AI plugin documentation they claim “Shadows are not supported in Gaussian Splatting scenes” I figured it was a limitation of them using sprites in thier niagra system, which would make it rather difficult to make an accurate shadow. but if there’s a simple coding fix or something that makes them able to, that would be awesome

@@levelupvfx It's not a simple coding. You'd have to capture the depth buffer from light's perspective, in the shader that renders the actual splat rendering you'd have to compute the fragment's position in light's space, make the comparison between the depth buffer and the distance to light and decide if the fragment is lit or not. And that's just the basic approach, but since the splats are puffy, additional shadow filtering techniques would have to be employed in order to produce a smooth shadow. Or implement volumetric light scattering where the splats could be interpreted as cloud density and also have self-shadowing. There ar multiple ways, but it's definitely possible. I was kind of expecting that since Unreal supports lit particles, that would kind of work automatically.

Sadly I pretty quickly gave up when it came to Gaussian Splats in blender, so I only tested it with blender before I started using postshot, I think the color data should be be in the PLY file, but if not, I’m sure there’s a way to get it out seperately

@@levelupvfx how to get the color data to blender?

If you would give me the chance, I'd like to argue my case here, I can tell you feel strongly that my title is pure clickbait, but I feel it is valid for what I am teaching. I believe when a title says "In blender" and does not mention plugins, it is implied that it is a tutorial using Vanilla blender. I cannot speak for you, but personally I actually find myself frustrated when I click on a tutorial where the title does not disclaim that its all a plugin, because I prefer knowing the powers and limitations of vanilla tools before moving onto plugins. While it may seem obvious to us in the know, many blender beginners do not know what you call "the normal way". And they find tutorials that teach them to use vertex painting or other wrong ways of painting masks. This video exists to teach them "The right way" to do it, which for most cases, the "right way" IS "The best way", especially for beginners who are just starting out, which this video is aimed at. Perhaps calling it "The Right Way to Texture Paint In Blender" would be more appropriate, but at the end of the day, I feel strongly that its just semantics at that point. Within the first thirty seconds of the video, I explain the problem "You can't understand how to properly mix two textures together on one object". If this does not address the problem my potential viewer is facing, I've provided an explanation of what I am teaching quickly, so they can click off and continue searching for a video more suited for their needs. I feel providing a quick explanation of what I am to do in the video, and then teaching that, is how I interpret "fkin decency" in the online educational space. There is a place for plugins and external programs, I wont argue that Philogix doesn't provide superior tools when compared to blender's native ones, it absolutely does. But if I were to account for plugins or, more importantly, 3rd party programs, I would much rather prefer to teach people how to use Substance or 3D coat, since it probably doesn't need to be said that dedicated software almost always is better than generalized software like blender.

output directory

Yes! Nothing you make is processed online, everything happens on your machine, I think you may need to be connected when you first start up because they need you to log in with your account, but after that you are good

Of course! Happy to help, that’s exactly why I wanted to make this tutorial!

Haha I keep a fire extinguisher next to my computer just in case

Thanks!

Yeah, I’m thinking of how to do this as well. I believe the best way is to somehow cache it out as a particle system and then bring it in with Niagra, but I’m not exactly sure about how to go about caching it out. Believe me though it’s on my list of things to do so stay tuned!